Revitalizing Sustainability in Mathematics Education: The Case of the New Norwegian Curriculum
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBasically, I think this paper's aim and methodology are relevant to Education Sciences. However, there remain issues that need to be addressed.
1. The description of the abstract could be improved. The reviewers believe that the authors should try to describe constructive and helpful comments that could improve the abstract, especially by highlighting the significant contributions of the study so that readers can know the key points of the study first time. Please consider whether the research questions mentioned in the introduction are consistent with the abstract.
2. About Section 2. Literature Review - Sparse and Smart, On page 2, lines 64 to 81. In the description of this paragraph, different search engines and tools were used to find three articles. Could the author(s) please specify and describe the method used to map their relationships and how these three truly representative articles were identified among multiple articles? Without this detailed information, it's challenging for readers to be convinced that the search results are representative articles.
3. Please confirm that the year of the literature in "2.3. Li & Tsai (2021): Education for sustainable development (ESD) in mathematics education: What could it look like?" should be 2022.
4. Carefully read the contents mentioned in 2.1 to 2.3, most of which are descriptions and statements of relevant literature on the topic. I want to know whether the opinions expressed in this article represent the author's opinions. Whether it should be integrated into the problem that this study wanted to explore and solve at the beginning, whether it can concretely present the concept of the problem that it wants to study and solve, or whether it should be added and supplemented with more literature to support the explanation.
5. About the 2.4. ESD in Mathematics Curriculum, On page 4, lines 186 to 189.
" We only selected those activities for the lower/middle schools, which span from grade 1 to 10. We intend to use this further since we think that such a way of integrating sustainability or sustainable development across the mathematics strands might be the way forward. "
The reviewer suggests the author(s) can explain why I chose only the lower/middle schools.
6. About the 3. Methodology, On page 5, lines 192 to 215. It is recommended that the author(s) should explain whether, in addition to simplifying the scope of the research, he has referred to relevant literature or based on the practice and only selected materials from grades 4, 7, and 10 as the scope of the research.
7. On page 8, line 318. This paragraph, " Figure 2 shows Task 117 in the grade 7 Matemagisk mathematics textbook " And line 330 Figure 2. Task 117 in grade 7 Matemagisk mathematics textbook using ecological context.
Please confirm whether Figure 2. here should be changed to Figure 1.?
8. Question one: On page 10, line 403. This paragraph, " sustainability across the curriculum [39] as shown in Figure 2."
What exactly does Figure 2 here mean to take Figure 1. or Figure 2.?
Question two: On page 10, line 403. This paragraph, " to integrate ESD (see Figure 1)." And line 412 Figure 1. A possible model of integrating sustainability across the curriculum in the Norwegian context.
Please confirm whether Figure 1. here should be changed to Figure 2.?
The author(s) is asked to confirm again whether he forgot to paste the content of the picture that should appear here. If so, please add the information to the picture.
According to points 7 and 8, please confirm the order and content description of the figures.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript "Re-vitalizing Sustainability in Mathematics Education: the case of the new Norwegian Curriculum". This paper explores an emerging research agenda in mathematics education focusing on the connections between mathematics education and education for sustainable development. Specifically, the focus of the study is very relevant and original, as it analyses the presence of sustainability in the core curriculum, in the mathematics curriculum and in a collection of textbooks, which triangulates and justifies the analysis very well.
However, there are some aspects that need to be improved:
1. Summary: it is necessary to summarise the results of the study in a more organised way, according to the three units of analysis: core curriculum, mathematics curriculum and textbooks, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses identified.
2. Introduction: it is necessary to add another research question that justifies the analysis of the textbooks. It is also advisable to make explicit the objectives of the study that emerge from the research questions.
3. Literature review: although the approach is original, as it delves into three representative articles from three different decades, in my view it does not sufficiently inform the research agenda on mathematics education for sustainability. I ask myself questions such as: what are the main research topics so far, what topics are still to be researched, and what are the main research topics still to be investigated? Additionally, section 2.4 needs more depth, with a review of other previous studies that have analysed for example the presence of sustainability in mathematics textbooks, in order to enhance the discussion.
4.Methodology: the sample (units of analysis) needs to be presented in more detail, perhaps in the form of a table; the data collection technique also needs to be much more precise, perhaps with a concrete example that would allow researchers to replicate the study in other countries.
5.Results: The presentation of the findings is very narrative. As far as possible, it is requested to show the results through tables and respective comments. Section 4.2, which is the main focus of the study, is very poor and limited to the selection of a few transcripts. It is advisable to start from previous categories (e.g. sustainability competences or SDGs, and conduct the analysis from this perspective).
6.Discussion: the reasons discussed for disengagement with ESD are very interesting. Perhaps with a more in-depth literature review, these reasons can be further strengthened and perhaps even some other reasons can be elicited. Section 5.1. should be revised in depth, two figures are mentioned: Figure 2, which I believe does not correspond to Figure 2 in the manuscript, and then Figure 1, which does not appear.
7.Conclusions: it is stated that "we also aspire to join such a club and call for ways in which mathematical activities and tasks can integrate the contexts of sustainability in a meaningful way", but this is not consistent with the objective(s) mentioned at the beginning. I suggest that there should be coherence throughout the text. Reference 40 is also not understood, as it is an aspect not addressed in the rest of the manuscript. I wonder if there has been some limitation in the study.
Finally, I suggest revising the final sentence... it seems to me that it is not opportune to tell researchers to do better, but much more proactive to point to future lines of research that will contribute to improving current knowledge in this research agenda.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRegarding this revision, the reviewer believes that the issues raised in the previous review have been resolved. The author is requested to re-arrange the manuscript and check the relevant format before the journal accepts it so that readers can understand the content more smoothly when reading the article. And remove the text content that should be deleted.
Finally, there is one more thing to add. If you submit a revised manuscript in the future, please attach the reviewer's comments and reply point by point. Otherwise, the reviewer needs to check the previous questions and compare the revised manuscript content one by one. For reviewers, this is a very time-consuming and labor-intensive task.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt's ok
